PseudoDionysius the Areopagite
and Eastern Orthodoxy:
Acceptance of the Corpus Dionysiacum
and Integration of Neoplatonism into
Christian Theology
Vladimir KНARLAMOV, USA
«Богословские размышления» / «Theological Reflections». №16, 2016, p. 138154.
© V. Kharlamov, 2016
Abstract
About the author
Vladimir Kharlamov (Ph.D.,
Drew) teaches for Doctor of Ministry program at Drew University,
author of The Beauty of the Unity
and the Harmony of the Whole:
The Concept of Theosis in the
Theology of Pseudo-Dionysius the
Areopagite (2009), contributor and
editor of Theosis: Deification in
Christian Theology (vol. 1, coedited with Stephen Finlan, 2006 and
vol. 2, 2011), among his recent academic articles: “Can Baptists Be
Deified? The Significance of the
Early Christian Understanding of
Theosis for Baptist Spirituality,”
Baptistic Theologies 7 (2015): 69–
84. He is member of the North
American Patristics Society and
American Academy of Religion.
E-mail: [email protected].
138
This essay will argue that the heritage of PseudoDionysius the Areopagite represents the most living and
widespread influence of Neoplatonic ideas in the Eastern
Orthodox tradition. First, the attention will be given to the
influence or placement of the Dionysian corpus in the midst
of the cultural formation of Byzantine imperial Christian
identity. This cultural pattern is still an important element of
the mindset of Eastern Orthodoxy and, as a living experience
of this tradition, it still constitutes a vibrant representation of
the essentially Neoplatonic mentality. Second, the significance
of Dionysian understanding of celestial and ecclesiastical
hierarchies will be briefly addressed in view of their impact
on metaphysical stratification of the world, theurgical
connotation of church liturgy and clerical structuring of priestly
ranks as the most characteristic elements inherited from
Neoplatonism and expressly present in Eastern Orthodox
spirituality.
Keywords: Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, Eastern
Orthodoxy, Neoplatonism, Christianity and Greek philosophy
Áîãîñëîâñêèå ðàçìûøëåíèÿ, ¹16 / 2016
Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and Eastern Orthodoxy
T
he significance of later Neoplatonism on syncretically conveyed development of
variety Islamic forms of mysticism, Jewish Kabala, late Patristic and Medieval
Christian theology and mysticism, Platonism of Nicholas Cusa (1401–1464) and
Marsilio Ficino (1433–1499), and as such on early Renaissance, and Protestant
mysticism of Jacob Boehme (1575–1624) is usually underappreciated by modern
scholarship. In some recent studies this tendency started to change that allows us
eventually to come to a more accurate picture of intellectual development where
Neoplatonism continues to embrace to some degree and have influenced basically
most of religious traditions within JudeoChristian and Muslim world and some
contemporary religious philosophers.[1] For instance, its profound impact, often in
mediated form and sometime directly, on a number of Russian religious philosophers
is tremendous. Vladimir Solovyov (1853–1900) is a good example. Laying aside the
differences of Muslim, Jewish and Christian theologies in themselves and with each
other, Neoplatonism provided a unifying understanding of God as essentially a
transcendent being, the notion of the divine, a sacred and orderly designed universe,
openness and hiddenness of God or intricate interplay of cataphatic and apophatic
way of human approximation to God that were uniquely implemented in Abrahamic
monotheistic religions.
The role and place of PseudoDionysius the Areopagite in this process, in rela
tion to Christianity, cannot be ignored. The author of this corpus of mysterious ori
gin certainly is not the only—and by far not the first—Christian theologian who would
demonstrate significant reliance in his theology on Hellenistic philosophy. Starting
with Clement of Alexandria (c. 150– c. 215) and Origen (c. 185– c. 254) many philo
sophical aspects of Middle Platonism entered Christian theological discourse through
the process of creative adaptation. Gregory of Nyssa in the fourth century clearly
shows his familiarity with the philosophy of Plotinus (204/5–270, the founder of
Neoplatonism); however, the direct use of Plotinus finds rather limited application
in his theology. Nobody in preceding Patristic tradition can supersede PseudoDi
onysius in the degree and open implementation of Greek philosophy, especially of
the later Neoplatonism. Precisely, the reliance on Proclus (410/412–485), whom
PseudoDionysius sometime closely follows, in the Corpus Dionysiacum helped to
prove the pseudonymous nature of his writings and date them.[2] The sophisticated
[1]
See for example, R. M. Berchman, From
Philo to Origen: Middle Platonism in Transition,
Brown Judaic Studies, 69 (Chico, CA: Schol
ars Press, 1984); H. J. Blumenthal and R. A.
Markus, eds., Neoplatonism and Early Christian
Thought: Essays in Honour of A. H. Armstrong
(London: Variorum Publications, 1981); Kevin
Corrigan, Reading Plotinus: A Practical Intro
duction to Neoplatonism (West Lafayette, IN:
Purdue University Press, 2005); Majid Fakhry,
AlFarabi, Founder of Islamic Neoplatonism: His
Life, Works and Influence (Oxford: One World,
2002); R. Baine Harris, ed., Neoplatonism and
Contemporary Thought (Albany, NY: State Uni
Theological Reflections, #16 / 2016
versity of New York Press, 2002); Dominic J.
O’Meara, ed., Neoplatonism and Christian
Thought (Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press, 1982); Niketas Siniossoglou, Palto
and Theodoret: The Christian Appropriation of
Platonic Philosophy and the Hellenic Intellectu
al Resistance (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press, 2008).
[2]
See, Hugo Koch, “Proklus als Quelle des
PseudoDionysius Areopagita in der Lehre vom
Bösen,” Philologus 54 (1895): 438–54; idem,
PseudoDionysius Areopagita in Seinen Beziehu
ngen zum Neuplatonismus und Mysterienwesen,
(1900); Josef Stiglmayr, “Der Neuplatoniker
139
Vladimir Kharlamov
and complex use of Greek philosophy in preceding Patristic tradition after accep
tance into it of the Corpus Dionysiacum significantly facilitated incorporation of un
adulterated and unfiltered elements of later Neoplatonism in some expressions of
Christian spirituality. Neoplatonic elements became so deeply incorporated into the
practice and theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church that over the centuries they
became considered as authentic elements of Christian tradition. The process of ap
propriation of PseudoDionysian heritage took place to such a degree that for most
Eastern Orthodox believers it would be almost unacceptable to acknowledge any di
rect and basically unaltered influence of Neoplatonism as a part of their tradition.
Some scholars even today would attempt to interpret the theology of PseudoDiony
sius as genuinely Christian.[3] This perception is not necessarily surprising as to some
degree through the complicated process of reinterpretation these Neoplatonic influ
ences became sort of Christianized. Nevertheless, this “baptized” form of Neopla
tonism never eradicated the key elements of strongly hierarchical and fixed delinea
tion of metaphysical structure of the world (both angelic and human), unbridgeable
ontological differentiations, and theurgical understanding of sacramentalism.
It is also important to point out that prior to PseudoDionysius, with some ex
ception for Gregory of Nyssa, direct influence of precisely Neoplatonic tradition on
Christianity has had a very limited effect.[4] The Platonism of the Patristic writers of
the third and fourth centuries predominantly comes from Plato himself, Middle Pla
tonism, Philo of Alexandria (c. 15 BCE–45 CE), and the ideas of Origen; in other
words, it comes from prePlotinian sources. It was not until Augustine (354–430)
and Boethius (c. 480–c. 524) in the West and PseudoDionysius in the East that
Plotinus, and in the case of PseudoDionysius, also Iamblichus (c. 250–c. 330) and
Proclus (especially Proclus), acquired a prominent position in Christian thought. If
Augustine valued Neoplatonism as the way for intellectuals to come to the truth of
Christianity, PseudoDionysius enthusiastically incorporated this tradition as a part
of his Christian discourse. He does not hesitate to include passages from Proclus ver
batim into his works and, to a great extent, appropriate Neoplatonic discourse and
terminology. PseudoDionysius demonstrated not only first hand knowledge of Neo
platonic texts, but also his acceptance of this tradition as being congenial with Chris
tianity. In other words, PseudoDionysius is both Neoplatonic and Christian at his
core, or more precisely Neoplatonic Christian.
Proclus als Vorlage des sog. Dionysius Areopagi
ta in der Lehre vom Übel,” Historisches Jahr
buch 16 (1895): 253–73, 721–48; etc.
[3]
Alexander Golitzin, Et Introibo Ad Altare
Dei: The Mystagogy of Dionysius Areopagita: With
Special Reference to Its Predecessors in the East
ern Christian Tradition (Thessaloniki: Patri
archikon Idruma Paterikon Meleton, 1994) and
revised version of this book, Alexander Golitzin
with the collaboration of Bogdan G. Bucur, Mys
tagogy: A Monastic Reading of Dionysius Areopagi
ta (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2013).
[4]
Here I tend to agree with John Rist, al
140
though, he should more thoroughly examine
influence of Neoplatonism on Eusebius of Cae
sarea, especially in Demonstratio Evangelica 4.
See his excellent overview of Neoplatonism and
Christianity: “Basil’s ‘Neoplatonism’: Its Back
ground and Nature,” in Basil of Caesarea: Chris
tian, Humanist, Ascetic, ed. Paul Jonathan Fed
wick (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval
Studies, 1981), 137–220; idem, “Plotinus and
Christian Philosophy,” in The Cambridge Com
panion to Plotinus, ed. Lloyd P. Gerson (Cam
bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999)
386–413.
Áîãîñëîâñêèå ðàçìûøëåíèÿ, ¹16 / 2016
Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and Eastern Orthodoxy
To acknowledge essentially Neoplatonic character of PseudoDionysian theolo
gy would be nothing more than to postulate wellestablished fact. It is not the objec
tive of this essay to attempt to reestablish this fact, but rather to trace how some
Dionysian Neoplatonic elements in Christianized form impacted the development
of Christian tradition, especially Eastern Orthodoxy, and to demonstrate the still
existing presence of this influence, even though the predicate “Neoplatonic” is usu
ally omitted, but the nature of Neoplatonism is still there.
To provide the complete and detailed account of the transmission of the Corpus
Dionysiacum filtered through the centuries after this corpus was written would require
a multivolume book. This essay will concentrate on a few of the most significant con
tributions of PseudoDionysius to the development of the Eastern Orthodox world
view. First, the attention will be given to the influence or placement of the Diony
sian corpus in the midst of the cultural formation of Byzantine imperial Christian
identity. This cultural pattern still proved to be an important element of the mindset
of Eastern Orthodoxy and, as a living experience of this tradition, it still constitutes
a vibrant representation of the essentially Neoplatonic mentality. Second, the signif
icance of Dionysian understanding of celestial and ecclesiastical (human) hierarchies
will be briefly addressed in view of their impact on metaphysical stratification of the
world, theurgical connotation of church liturgy and clerical structuring of priestly
ranks as the most characteristic elements inherited from Neoplatonism and expressly
present in Eastern Orthodox spirituality.
I
The role of Greek philosophy, Hellenistic culture, and Christian tradition finds
interesting symbiosis in the Corpus Dionysiacum. The relationship between Greek
philosophy and Christian theology is a complex one. Modern scholarship has no gen
eral consensus on this issue. Needless to say, such a consensus is absent from Patris
tic writers themselves. Their attitude toward pagan philosophy and culture diverged
greatly. One thing that is evident is that by the time when the works of PseudoDi
onysius were introduced various philosophical traditions were eclectically represent
ed in the form of later Neoplatonism.[5] Eclecticism of philosophical and popular el
ements intertwined together were a common feature of the culture at large. Starting
with Iamblichus predominantly speculative and contemplative reflection that is so
well attested in Plotinus and most other great Greek philosophers who preceded him
was complemented with incorporation of traditional pagan ritualism as the part of
philosophical enterprise. Many Greek philosophers prior to the fourth century were
rather skeptical about popular religion, while some of them even openly denied ex
istence of gods, which is not surprising that many of them were expelled from their
cities for alleged impiety and atheism. The best value of popular religion and belief
in gods were seen only as good imperative for commoners that helped to keep social
[5]
The first firm date when we know about the
existence of the Corpus Dionysiacum is 528. See
Paul Rorem and John Lamoreaux, John of
Theological Reflections, #16 / 2016
Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: Annotating
the Areopagite (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1998), 10.
141
Vladimir Kharlamov
order and morality, but not actual truthfulness of traditional stories about gods. Iam
blichus changed all of it. If Porphyry was somewhat doubtful about the benefits of
such an approach, postIamblichian development of Neoplatonism, especially in the
context of the rising power of Christianity that began dominating religious affairs in
the Roman Empire, ignored his concerns. The understanding of theurgy in specu
lative and practical sense became one of the important themes in Neoplatonism and
we find interesting application of theurgy in PseudoDionysius, which will be ad
dressed later.
As far as the use of philosophy is concerned, for Greek speaking Christians the
word “philosophy” itself, which means “love of wisdom,” does not connote any pe
jorative sense. It is often taken in its literal meaning, of course, under the search for
wisdom they understood divine wisdom that comes from Christian revelation as it is
expressed in Scriptures and tradition. Moreover, for Late Antiquity Christians, who,
along with their nonChristian contemporaries, would understand philosophy as a
search for the true knowledge of things eternal and divine, philosophy would repre
sent a way of life and the content of basic human knowledge. In this sense, in both
Christian and nonChristian perspectives, it would not greatly differ from what could
be understood as the quest for perfection, virtue, selfcontrol, happiness, and knowl
edge of God, where the name “philosophy” becomes applicable to the Christian re
ligion itself. Likewise, uncovering of the highest meaning of the Scripture is true phi
losophy. For example, Gregory of Nyssa easily speaks about “the philosophy of the
Song of Songs,” or “philosophy in Ecclesiastes.”[6]
If the application of the word “philosophy” in Patristic tradition is rather favor
able, the situation changes when Church fathers speak about “philosophers.” “Phi
losophy” would connote a more positive meaning, while “philosophers” would be
referring, often in the pejorative sense, to the outsiders and pagans.[7] However, as
everything was said and done, Patristic apologetic tradition starting with Justin in the
second century and going well into the fifth, especially in Eusebius of Caesarea (c.
260–c. 340)[8] and Theodoret of Cyr (c. 393–466),[9] is not all that negative about the
content of Hellenistic philosophy. In other words, there is some sense of acknowl
edgement that pagan philosophers (of course, not without errors) were able to dis
close the natural knowledge of God. This cautious endorsement of Greek philoso
phy that might have some true insights that are independent of biblical revelation,
however, is nothing compared to the reliance on later Neoplatonism we find in Pseudo
[6]
In Cant. 1; GNO 6:17.10–11 and 22.8.
Angelo Di Berardino and Basil Studer, eds.,
History of Theology. Vol. 1 The Patristic Period
(Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1997),
312–13.
[8]
Eusebius is mostly known and celebrated
in Christian tradition as the father of Church
history. As the result of his SemiArian
inclinations his other literary endeavors that are
enormous are rather shelved and ignored.
Eusebius, actually, is one of the most learned
[7]
142
scholars and apologists of his time, who in his
encyclopedic knowledge, according to Quasten,
was probably superseded only by Origen
(Patrology, 3:311). He is, however, less creative
and original than Origen, but his treatises on
Preparation for the Gospel, The Proof of the
Gospel, along with Theophany, the last one
survives only in Greek fragments and Syriac
translation, are the most laborious works of
Christian apologetics.
[9]
See his Cure of Pagan Maladies.
Áîãîñëîâñêèå ðàçìûøëåíèÿ, ¹16 / 2016
Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and Eastern Orthodoxy
Dionysius. Besides, the anonymous author of the corpus, as it can be argued, does
not even try to hide his sympathies.
If the discovery of the influence that Proclus had on PseudoDionysius by Hugo
Koch and Josef Stiglmayr[10] had a revolutionary impact on modern scholarship, it
is hard to imagine that in a time when the intellectual scene of pagan philosophy was
dominated by Neoplatonism and Neoplatonic schools at Athens and Alexandria were
still functioning or only recently put out of business,[11] the explicit use of Neopla
tonic materials by PseudoDionysius could go unnoticed by contemporaries. Appar
ently, nineteenth century critics of Dionysius did not read one passage in the Pro
logue to this corpus, now attributed to John Philoponus (d. c. 580),[12] where the sim
ilarity of the Corpus Dionysiacum with Proclus was already clearly stated. John
Philoponus bluntly denies that the author of such works of great theological integri
ty who places himself in the midst of the solar eclipse at the time of Christ’s death,
the Dormition of the Mother of God, and presents himself as correspondent with the
apostles would not be authentic. For Philoponus it was not PseudoDionysius who
borrowed from Proclus, but the other way around. It was pagan philosophers, espe
cially Proclus, who used certain concepts of Dionysius without giving him proper
credit.[13] Discovery of Dionysian dependence on Proclus that came as a surprise to
modern church historians was a known fact in late Antiquity. The influence of Neo
platonic philosophy in Dionysian theology was not the fact that ancients were igno
rant of as early enthusiasts of this corpus tried to overcome in the process of accep
tance of these works.
It also can be argued that, in spite of the dubious nature of the Corpus Dionysi
acum, its Neoplatonic content, in Christianized form, actually helped to pave a way
for its acceptance. There is a certain logic in attributing these highly philosophical
and deeply theoretical treatises to the pen of Dionysius the Areopagite, not neces
sarily as a pretentious forgery, but as a literary device.[14] Dionysius the Areopagite is
the most prominent character in the New Testament who is unique at his conjunc
tion between Jerusalem and Athens or between the apostle Paul and Greek philoso
[10]
See footnote 2.
Neoplatonic school at Athens was closed
in around 529 by Justinian, while Neoplatonic
school in Alexandria in restructured and
Christianized form survived until Muslim
conquest in 641.
[12]
See Beate Regina Suchla, “Die Überlief
erung des Prologs des Johannes von Skythopo
lis zum griechischen Corpus Dionysiacum Ar
eopagiticum: ein weiterer Beitrag zur Überlief
erungsgeschichte des CD,” Nachrichten der
Akademie Der Wissenschaften in Göttingen: I.
PhilologischHistorische Klasse (1984), 4:176–
88.
[13]
PG 4:21.
[14]
This practice was not uncommon for late
Antiquity. For example, Iamblichus published
his famous treatise, De Mysteriis, where he ar
[11]
Theological Reflections, #16 / 2016
gues with his mentor Porphyry under the name
of the Egyptian prophet Abamon, while his au
thorship was well attested by Proclus and prob
ably by Porphyry himself. The reason why Iam
blichus did it might be that out of courtesy to
his mentor he did not want to appear to argue
against him openly. There is also whole tradi
tion of Hermetic and Pythagorean literature,
which attributed respectively to Hermes and
Pythagoras, while their readers were well aware
that it is very unlikely that either of these au
thors actually wrote these works, however, they
still were considered to be authentic as being
authentically inspired by Hermes and Pythag
oras. See Emma C. Clarke, John M. Dillon and
Jackson P. Hershbell, “Introduction,” in Iam
blichus: De Mysteriis (Atlanta, GA: Society of
Biblical Literature, 2003), xxix–xxxii.
143
Vladimir Kharlamov
phy—a Christian student of philosophers and the apostle. In this regard, this attri
bution could be nothing more than a symbolic gesture of great phenomenological
significance, to demonstrate the essential truth of both traditions as having been de
rived essentially from the same divine source, which to some degree was confirmed
by the authority of the apostle Paul in his sermon of “Unknown God.”[15] Was not
this tactic much different from what other apologists did (however, for different rea
sons) in their attempt to demonstrate the antiquity of Christian truth by suggesting
that Plato and other Greek philosophers borrowed their ideas from Moses?
Christianity from its early times did not really feel itself in total opposition to, nor
was it entirely ostracized from, the Hellenistic culture. Greek language of the New
Testament itself is a good testimony that, from the beginning, Christianity was
situated in the Hellenistic world. Thus, it is not surprising that the author of the
Corpus Dionysiacum used so laboriously and deliberately scriptural, patristic and
philosophic materials mingled together in order to demonstrate that better than
anything else this might confirm the congenial identity of those materials with the
ultimate source of the truth, or at least they were considered to be congenial to his
mind. With the Corpus Dionysiacum we might be dealing not so much with the direct
attribution of the corpus to the Areopagite, but a metaphorical one, with the purpose
of demonstrating in its content and theoretically justifying the essential congeniality
of the Christian message and Neoplatonic philosophy. This approach might explain
the initial popularity of these works among some groups of Christian intellectuals in
spite of obvious concerns about the authenticity that had already been voiced in the
six century. If this assumption is accurate and attribution to the Areopagite was
symbolic, then it is the irony of history that later this pseudonymity, taken literally,
helped first to secure the subsequent survival of the corpus and later to brand it as the
most successful forgery.
Sophisticated incorporation of Neoplatonic elements into a Christian context
would serve as an important component in securing the ultimate transition from the
Old Way, with all its aspirations and customs dear to the heart of the educated Hel
lenized person, to the establishment of the New Way of imperial Byzantine Chris
tian identity. It is, perhaps, why some Christian intellectuals, like John Philoponus,
so easily ignored the suspicious origin, and explicitly Neoplatonic orientation, of the
corpus; it gave them a legitimate excuse to preserve the best of philosophic tradition
as a reflection of their cultural mentality, within Christian cloth. The Corpus Diony
siacum introduced and, by attribution to the apostolic times, justified the validity of
Christian faith in accord with the cultural norms that would characterize a person as
civilized. As such, the Corpus Dionysiacum is the foundational work for finalizing the
formation of what could be called civilized (either Greek or Latin) Christian identi
ty; the identity that to the mind of the ancients would comply with the cultural stan
dards of Hellenistic antiquity and the uninterrupted succession of Christian tradition,
where any tension between being both a true citizen of the Roman Empire and a
Christian were disappearing. The attribution of the corpus to Dionysius the Areopag
[15]
Acts 17:22–31.
144
Áîãîñëîâñêèå ðàçìûøëåíèÿ, ¹16 / 2016
Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and Eastern Orthodoxy
ite is an emblematic act in itself. Under the name of this person, the Byzantines could
perceive a symbolic reconciliation between Athens and Jerusalem in a mutually in
clusive Christian GrecoRoman identity.
With all the pros and cons, in spite of its obvious pseudonymity, the obscurity of
the origin, explicit use of Neoplatonic materials, and controversial theological state
ments, doubts about Dionysian corpus proved to be unable to compete with its philo
sophical appeal and mystical attractiveness. As a result, in spite of all odds, as Peli
kan remarks, “Dionysius was rescued and given the position of what we must, some
what anachronistically call an ‘apostolic father.’”[16] Among other factors, the recog
nition of the apostolicity of the Corpus Dionysiacum might be an important legitimate
excuse for some Christian authors like John Philoponus, Sergius of Resh‘aina (d.
536), John of Scythopolis (early 6th cen.), Maximus the Confessor (c. 580–662) and
many other, to express more openly their Neoplatonic tendencies and philosophic
interests. As Ronald Hathaway observes,
The four treatises and Letters of PseudoDionysius possessed philosophic
authority for later philosophers. They were not studied by men like Sergius of
Reshaina, Eriugena, Aquinas, or Nicolas of Cusa merely because they possessed
apostolic authority or were treated as nearScripture by ecclesiastical authorities,
although this contributed immeasurably to the propagation of the Corpus
Areopagiticum and to the safety of those who used it in Christian countries.[17]
PseudoDionysius would serve as a secure shield for what could be viewed as a
questionable intellectual enterprise as well as the stimulus for such an enterprise. At
the same time the Corpus Dionysiacum is the work of Christian author, who could be
a convert from intellectual paganism or Christian interested in philosophy. His fa
miliarity with Christian scriptures, regardless of the method of his exegesis, and pre
ceding Patristic tradition is apparent and significant. No doubt those factors also were
important for the acceptance of the documents.
Another important point of connection between later Neoplatonism and emerg
ing imperial Christian identity that was significantly reinforced by PseudoDiony
sius is the superessentially divine understanding of cosmic harmony and mystical
unity with the One or God. In Neoplatonism and in Christianity we encounter the
essential expression of monotheism, if, as Armstrong remarks, “One is prepared to
admit that there can be more than one kind of monotheism.”[18] Therefore it is not
that surprising to see significant influence of Neoplatonism not only on Christianity,
but also on Muslim mysticism and on the Jewish Kabala; in other words, on other
monotheistic religions.
[16]
Jaroslav Pelican, “Introduction,” in Pseu
doDionysius, The Complete Works, trans. Colm
Luibheid, and Paul Rorem (New York: Paulist
Press, 1987), 21.
[17]
Ronald F. Hathaway, Hierarchy and the
Definition of Order in the Letters of PseudoDi
onysius. A Study in the Form and Meaning of the
PseudoDionysian Writings (Hague: Nijhoff,
1969), 21.
Theological Reflections, #16 / 2016
[18]
A. H. Armstrong, “Plotinus and Christian
ity,” in Platonism in Late Antiquity, ed. Stephen
Gersh and Charles Kannengiesser (Notre
Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press,
1992), 124. For an example of discussion of the
supremacy of the One and existence of multi
plicity of gods who derive their existence from
the One see Plotinus, Enn. 2.9.9.27–44.
145
Vladimir Kharlamov
The theme of divine unity in ontological, metaphysical, spiritual, and monothe
istic form is the basic element that philosophically penetrates all aspects of Diony
sian theology. On the one hand, PseudoDionysius syncretically and genuinely in
corporates a nonChristian approach to gods as divine powers, energies, qualities, or,
in other words, intelligible and visible manifestations that are essentially grounded
in the One with the notion of the Christian God and his attributes. His language is
so richly filled with divine terminology that it still shocks modern Christian readers.
However, viewed in his historical context, the abundance of divine terminology is
rather a common stylistic feature in Late Antiquity, both in Christian and nonChris
tian literature. On the other hand, the divinely and triadically structured universe of
Proclus, with multitude of intelligible gods, intellectual gods, supercelestial gods, the
gods to whom the cosmos is assigned, angelic choruses, good daemons, heroes, etc.[19]
in Dionysius becomes the hierarchical universe of the One ultimately transcendent,
triune God, the triadic angelic and ecclesiastical (human) orders. In this cosmic view
of soteriological unification lies one of the main influences of later Neoplatonism on
PseudoDionysius, and from PseudoDionysius on Eastern Orthodoxy. In later Neo
platonism and PseudoDionysius there is no unmediated participation between the
lowest orders with the highest, each rank of the cosmic structure being confined to
its ontological status, and at the same time, paradoxically, the whole universe is di
vinely unified, or as Iamblichus puts it, “enveloped by the divine presence.”[20]
II
Any discussion of the Corpus Dionysiacum and its influence on Christian theology
cannot avoid addressing its exposition of the angelic world. Needless to say,
Dionysian classification of angelic beings became the classical standard for Eastern
Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions. PseudoDionysius certainly was not the
first to talk about angelic ranks in Christian theology and it is possible to find in the
Bible almost all of his nine angelic groups mentioned individually. However, as John
Meyendorff observes,
It is evident that the structure itself of the Dionysian angelic world has no
foundation in Scripture. Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, and the author of
the book called Apostolic Constitutions mention the whole series of nine Dionysian
appellations, but in different order. A certain tendency toward the classification
of angelic beings no doubt existed, but Dionysius gave it a systematic form and a
metaphysical foundation.[21]
His enneadic arrangement of the heavenly realm (three ranks with three classes
each) is important for Dionysius in order to maintain a balanced representation of
the metaphysical and cosmic order. Therefore, brief references to these angelic types
[19]
In Parm. Pref. 1.
Iamblichus, DM 1.3; Iamblichus, De Mys
teriis, trans. Emma C. Clarke, John M. Dillon,
and Jackson P. Hershbell (Atlanta, GA: Society
of Biblical Literature, 2003), 12–13. See also,
Proclus, In Tim. 2.64D.
[20]
146
[21]
John Meyendorff, Christ in Eastern Chris
tian Thought (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s
Seminary Press, 1975), 102. For the reference
in Cyril, see Myst. 5.6; in Chrysostom, see Gen.
4.5; also see Apostolic Constitutions 8.
Áîãîñëîâñêèå ðàçìûøëåíèÿ, ¹16 / 2016
Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and Eastern Orthodoxy
in Scripture are sufficient for him to construct a Christianlooking edifice around an
essentially Neoplatonic worldview,[22] where the lack of detailed information about
angelic diversification works to his advantage. It allows him to structure angelic
formations in the order that best suit him.
Compared to humanity and the rest of creation, the celestial realm of angelic be
ings is closer to God, more divine, and superior to human beings in their ontologi
cal status and metaphysical role.[23] They are both celestial powers and ontologically
personal beings. As messengers of God’s revelation and divine knowledge, they have
advanced ontological positioning and a higher level of participation in God.[24] An
gels play a considerable part in God’s intervention in the universe. Particular angels
are assigned to guard particular nations, just as Michael is the guardian angel of the
people of Israel.[25] The revelation of God comes to humankind only through angels:
“No one ever has seen or ever will see God in all its hiddenness.”[26] It is true for both
the Law of Moses, which was mediated to Israelites through angels, and, paradoxi
cally, even for the mystery of Christ’s philanthropy toward humankind.[27] Thus,
PseudoDionysius combines the biblical understanding of angels as God’s messen
gers with the Neoplatonic view of the subordinative and descending cosmic order.
Unmediated divine revelation from God to a human being is not really possible in
the Dionysian system, which makes his Christology ambiguous. Thus, the primary
role of the celestial hierarchy is to communicate the message of God throughout their
ranks to humanity.[28]
Angels do not have equal access to divine revelation and participation in God.[29]
Only the first rank of seraphim, cherubim, and thrones enjoys direct immediacy with
God.[30] From them, the divine revelation is communicated to the second rank of
angels and from the second to the third, and only then to human beings. This chain
of communication is reminiscent of the Neoplatonic way of procession, only onto
logically it does not correspond to the Proclian causeeffect relationship,[31] but it
[22]
Cf. Andrew Louth, Denys the Areopagite
(London: G. Chapman, 1989), 37.
[23]
CH 4.2 (180AB); EH 4.3.5 (480B); Ep.8.2
(1092B).
[24]
CH 5.
[25]
CH 9.2.
[26]
CH 4.3 (180C); Patristische Texte und
Studien 36:22; PseudoDionysius, The Complete
Works, 157.
[27]
CH 4.3–4. Cf. Gal 3:19.
[28]
CH 13.4 (308B).
[29]
CH 8.2 (240C).
[30]
CH 7.1 (205B).
[31]
For Proclus, everything that exists pro
ceeds in a vertically descending direction from
a single first cause—the One. The One through
emanation causes into existence the Intellect
where the Intellect is the effect of the One and
has direct participation in the One. At the same
time, the Intellect has lesser power than the One
and not equal to it. The Intellect in its turn caus
Theological Reflections, #16 / 2016
es the Soul where Soul is the effect of the Intel
lect and participates in the Intellect, but does
not participate directly into the One, and so on.
The causeeffect relationship corresponds to an
ontological transmission of power from one
thing to another. The producer is always supe
rior to the product. The causeeffect relation
ship also explains the diversity of the world and
assigns to each existent its proper place, at the
same time it shows unifying interconnection.
The idea of generation through emanation is not
original to Proclus. It is a common feature of
Neoplatonism. Proclus gives it very developed
ontological and metaphysical form. Where
PseudoDionysius differs from Proclus is that,
arguably, he does not have descending ontolog
ical causality while maintaining similar to Pro
clus principle of ontological metaphysical strat
ification. All existing beings for PseudoDiony
sius are not the product of emanation from each
other, but were created by God. God is not sim
147
Vladimir Kharlamov
reflects the descending order of participation from higher beings to lower ones. Nev
ertheless, this participation through the intermediaries of hierarchical ranks is an
actual participation in God. Because God causes all groups of beings, in this de
scending chain of participation, all beings through “dissimilar similarities”[32] are
ultimately partaking in the same single Cause. It is a structured collaboration, or syn
ergy, between God and created beings.[33] Here Neoplatonic understanding of the
return is combined with ascending mysticism of Christian tradition.
A strong sense of cosmic order in PseudoDionysius is projected to a similarly
strong, however, ontologically more flexible,[34] understanding of social or human
order, which is, as anything else in Dionysian theology in its ideal form, is sacred and
represented by the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Both celestial and ecclesiastical hierar
chies are closely connected in their purifying, illuminating, and perfecting ministries.
The sacramental system of the Church is presented in his treatise on Ecclesiastical
Hierarchy as an indispensable link between the invisible and eternal reality with the
visible and transient reality of our world. It is probably why sacraments constitute the
first order of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Everything we see in the church is a sym
bolic representation of invisible reality that is mysteriously present there. The litur
gical aspect of his theology is significant. The whole universe for him is a liturgical
act and a divine theurgical work. Therefore, the role of theurgy in PseudoDiony
sius, like in later Neoplatonism, finds intricate development.
To the popular perception, theurgy (qeourgi,a) is often seen as a form of white
magic or other “hocus pocus” tricks. For later Neoplatonism this term would signi
fy a more existential and important form of humandivine interaction. In Iambli
chus, an understanding of theurgy could be described “as the often involuntary man
ifestation of an inner state of sanctity deriving from a combination of goodness and
knowledge in which the former element prevails.”[35] Thus, in later Neoplatonism the
practice of theurgy introduces a stronger sense of human dependence on gods, who
alone establish, through proper rituals and actual divine symbols, theurgic union. In
other words, the initiative of theurgical engagement comes always from above. In
Harl’s witty observation, theurgy “implied a pagan version of grace because the theu
rgist, through sacred symbols revealed by appropriate sacrifices and rituals, achieved
communion with the divine.”[36] For Proclus the higher theurgy, which goes above
Iamblichus’s ritual theurgy, employs the power of faith.[37]
PseudoDionysius uses the term “theurgy” and its cognates fortyeight times,
which by two occurrences supersedes even extensive application of this terminology
ply the first cause in the list of many, but the
only cause of everything.
[32]
CH 2 (137D).
[33]
CH 3.2 (165B).
[34]
Angels of any rank and class cannot change
their ontological status, while humans can
progress through the ranks of human hierarchy.
[35]
Polymnia Athanassiadi, “Dreams, Theu
rgy and Freelance Divination: The Testimony
of Iamblichus,” The Journal of Roman Studies
148
83 (1993): 116. Cf. Iamblichus, DM 1.12.
[36]
K. W. Harl, “Sacrifice and Pagan Belief in
Fifth and Sixth Century Byzantium,” Past and
Present 128 (1990): 12. Cf. R. T. Wallis, Neopla
tonism, 2 ed. (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub
lishing Company, 1995), 121–22.
[37]
See Laurence Rosan, The Philosophy of
Proclus: The Final Phase of Ancient Thought
(New York, NY: Cosmos GreekAmerican
Printing, 1949), 215.
Áîãîñëîâñêèå ðàçìûøëåíèÿ, ¹16 / 2016
Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and Eastern Orthodoxy
in Iamblichus’s De Mysteriis.[38] Prior to PseudoDionysius, theurgical terminology
is not found in Christian literature, and even later its use is rather scarce, if not to
tally absent. There is no question that the language of theurgy was adopted by Pseu
doDionysius from Neoplatonic sources.
If overall, PseudoDionysius did not express significant influence on the devel
opment of liturgical texts, his influence on a theurgically connoted interpretation of
liturgical drama is tremendous. It is true, as Andrew Louth points out, that most theu
rgical language in PseudoDionysius appears in the context of Christ’s Incarnation
as the most significant soteriological event of direct divine interaction.[39] However,
Dionysian theurgical terminology is not limited to his Christology alone. The first
rank of angels receives the knowledge of theurgy directly from God,[40] and commu
nicates it to the lower ranks of beings,[41] church sacraments have theurgical signifi
cance,[42] liturgical doxology and prayers are hymns of theurgy,[43] about the Creed
PseudoDionysius says, “To me it seems that this song is a celebration of all the theu
rgy on our behalf.”[44] In addition to that, PseudoDionysius masterfully incorporates
the concept of theurgy in a scriptural exegetical pattern. Christian scripture as the
manifestation of divine oikonomia is the work of theurgy as well. From Scripture (in
this instance, perhaps from the Gospels) we learn about the “human and theurgical
(qeourgi,aj) works of Jesus.”[45] Moreover, the Scriptures “which God himself hand
ed down . . . reveal to us all that we can know of God, all his works [i.e., theurgy,
qeourgi,aj] and words and manifestations, every sacred word and work, everything, in
short, which the divinity has so generously wished to pass on to the human hierar
chy, every sacred thing done and said by God.”[46] The whole economical aspect of
God’s providence in the world receives theurgical appropriation. This scriptural pat
tern, through sacramental participation, becomes representative of the Dionysian
favorite triad of purification–illumination–perfection that consummates human
approximation to communion and union with God:
From scripture it has been shown that the sacred divine birth [i.e. the sacrament
of baptism] is a purification and an illuminating enlightenment, that the sacra
ments of the synaxis [i.e. the Eucharist] and of the myronointment [the precise
nature of this sacrament is unique to PseudoDionysius] provide a perfecting
knowledge and understanding of the divine workings [i.e., theurgy, qeourgi,an] and
that it is through this that there is effected both the unifying uplifting toward the
divinity and the most blessed communion with it.[47]
[38]
De Mysteriis seems to be the only work
where Iamblichus uses this terminology; how
ever, he justifiably receives credit for introduc
tion of ritualistically oriented theurgical con
tent into Neoplatonism.
[39]
Andrew Louth, “Pagan Theurgy and
Christian Sacramentalism in Denys the Ar
eopagite,” Journal of Theological Studies 37
(1986): 434. Cf. Alexander Golitzin, Mystagogy,
87–88.
[40]
CH 7.2.
[41]
CH 13.4; EH 5.1.2; 5.1.4.
Theological Reflections, #16 / 2016
[42]
EH 2.2.7; 2.3.8; 3.2; 3.3.15; 5.1.3.
EH 3.3.4; 3.3.10.
[44]
EH 3.3.7 (436C), Patristische Texte und
Studien 36:88; PseudoDionysius, The Complete
Works, 218.
[45]
EH 3.3.4 (429C); Patristische Texte und
Studien 36:83. Cf. DN 1.4 (592B).
[46]
EH 5.3.7 (513C); Patristische Texte und
Studien 36:113; PseudoDionysius, The Com
plete Works, 242.
[47]
EH 5.1.3 (504BC); Patristische Texte und
Studien 36:106; PseudoDionysius, The Com
[43]
149
Vladimir Kharlamov
In its Iamblichean sense, refined by Proclus, theurgy in pseudoDionysius is
closely correlated with the ultimate goal of every rational being striving for union with
God, a goal that was appropriated both in terms of mystical contemplation and rit
ualistic significance. Again with the help of Proclus, the contemplative aspect of
theurgy in this regard is conceptually reconciled with both the contemplative philos
ophy of Plotinus and the preceding Christian mystical writers, such as Gregory of
Nyssa and Evagrius. In this sense, Iamblichus’s theurgical orientation and essential
unity of the cosmos is intricately modified in the Dionysian vision, which both ap
proximates it more closely to the ultimate ideal of Neoplatonism—process of the re
turn and the union with the supertranscendent One, and, at the same time, expresses
it in Christian terms.[48]
Moreover, bishops (as leaders of the ecclesiastical hierarchy) are invested with the
mystery of theurgy.[49] Through the ministry of bishops, “It makes known the works
of God [i.e. the theurgy, qeourgi,aj] by way of the sacred symbols and it prepares the
postulants to contemplate and participate in the holy sacraments.”[50] In such a strong
sense of hierarchical order, still closely observed in Eastern Orthodoxy, the role of the
bishop plays a significant part. PseudoDionysius, naturally, was not the first to in
troduce the highly respected role of bishop in the Christian Church, but he was the
one who theologically reinforced the theurgically oriented sacramentality of the epis
copal office, and firmly established the position of bishop not only in the ecclesias
tical hierarchy, but also in his metaphysical representation of cosmic reality. By the
virtue of the office, a bishop occupies the most advanced position in human order.[51]
The virtue of the office does not negate the virtuous character of the individual who
occupies it. Nevertheless, Dionysian emphasis on the metaphysical significance of
the office in his perception of perfect order of human society certainly overpowers
the emphasis on personal qualities and in some sense is reminiscent of Augustine’s
teaching on divine grace that is channeled through properly performed rituals and
thus rendering them valid regardless of the character of the person who performs
them. The role of the bishop as the main channel of mediation of anything divine that
comes to other ecclesiastical ranks significantly helped to cement already elevated
position of episcopal office and enhance even further subordinative nature of the
ecclesiastical hierarchy. Any decision of a bishop in his diocese receives almost un
questionable authority and this state of things still quite commonly present in the life
of the Orthodox Church. Only bishops of the higher rank or a council of bishops can
overturn decision made by another bishop. Other priests, monks and laity are sim
ply not in proper metaphysical position to oppose a bishop.
Dionysian hierarchical perspective additionally increased the separation between
clergy and laity in liturgical life. Even though the word “liturgy” in Greek means the
plete Works, 235–36.
[48]
See Gregory Shaw, “Neoplatonic Theurgy
and Dionysius the Areopagite,” Journal of Early
Christian Studies 7 (1999): 580–81.
[49]
EH 1.5; 5.3.7.
[50]
EH 5.1.6 (505D); Patristische Texte und
150
Studien 36:108; PseudoDionysius, The
Complete Works, 237.
[51]
The bishop is below the highest rank of the
ecclesiastical hierarchy, which is occupied by
sacraments, but his is of the highest position
available to human individuals.
Áîãîñëîâñêèå ðàçìûøëåíèÿ, ¹16 / 2016
Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and Eastern Orthodoxy
“work of the people,” in PseudoDionysius it is, properly speaking, exclusively the
work of clergy, who, by the nature of their ranks, reflect an advanced knowledge not
accessible to simple mortals. “The people” are more like passive bystanders than
actual participants, or as Wesche remarks, “the liturgy primarily is a ‘show’ which one
observes, rather than a celebration in which one participates.”[52] With a heightened
sense of the mysterious nature of liturgical drama as symbolic representation of the
heavenly reality, the liturgy itself correlates closely to the Neoplatonic concept of
theurgy, where bishops and priests occupy the proper role of Hellenistic hierophants.
Consequently, not only does the clergy receive an elevated status, but their liturgical
performance does as well.
Liturgical perspective inspired by Dionysian theology contributed in the Eastern
Churches to the erection of the iconostasis that separates the altar part of the church
accessible to the clergy from the rest of the sanctuary, thus increasing the sense of the
sacredness of the action, and remoteness of the laity, from direct participation in it.[53]
The mystery of sacred knowledge concealed from the lower ranks of the ecclesiasti
cal hierarchy will go hand in hand with the mystery of the liturgical performance,
where the most sacramental parts of it would be literally concealed or blocked by the
iconostasis from the view of the laity and the most important Eucharistic prayers
would be recited in whisper. As John Meyendorff observes,
Only by ascending the steps of the hierarchy by way of initiation does one reach
the mystery that remains always essentially hidden. In the absence of an initia
tion, one possesses only an indirect knowledge through hierarchical intermediar
ies and symbols. . . . The necessary correctives to Dionysius were fairly rapidly
incorporated in the realm of pure theology, but his symbolic and hierarchical
conception of the liturgy marked forever Byzantine piety.[54]
As far as experience of the liturgy is concerned in relation to the presence of
iconostasis, as Meyendorff notes in another place, “The liturgy, more than ever, con
tinued to be seen as a mystery being contemplated with the celebrant making appear
ances, then disappearing behind the screen and the curtain, with the vision and per
spective of PseudoDionysius being confirmed in the legitimacy it received in the
sixth century.”[55] This interplay of openness and hiddenness of God, important in
sight of Patristic theology, was, as the result of Dionysian metaphysical speculations,
essentially legitimized not only in strict hierarchical segregation of clergy from laity,
but also became every Sunday experience of Eastern Orthodox believers.[56]
[52]
Kenneth Paul Wesche, “Christological
Doctrine and Liturgical Interpretation in Pseu
doDionysius,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quar
terly 33 (1989): 73.
[53]
There also is the possibility that the prac
tice of building the iconostasis was already de
veloping in Christian tradition before Pseudo
Dionysius. In EH 3.3.2 (428C) he mentions
beautifully depicted gateways of the sanctuary as
sufficient for those who are not yet perfect. The
precise meaning of this reference is not clear. It
Theological Reflections, #16 / 2016
is possible that our author is simply giving theo
logical justification for already existing practice.
[54]
Meyendorff, Christ in Eastern Christian
Thought, 110–11.
[55]
Meyendorff, “Continuities and Disconti
nuities in Byzantine Religious Thought,”
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 47 (1993), 80 (empha
sis is in original).
[56]
Cf. Meyendorff, “Continuities and Discon
tinuities in Byzantine Religious Thought,” 78.
151
Vladimir Kharlamov
With the full acceptance of the apostolic authority of the corpus, PseudoDiony
sius becomes an important player in what is considered orthodox development of
Byzantine theology. The eightcentury Iconoclastic controversy and the fourteen
century Hesychast debates draw upon Neoplatonic Dionysian terminology.[57] Nat
urally, the world of Eastern Orthodoxy is more complex and cannot be reduced to
exclusively Dionysian influence, however, the Corpus Dionysiacum and its Neopla
tonism certainly is a significant ingredient there. At the same time, Dionysian influ
ence should not be seen as the unaltered. As Bernard McGinn correctly observes,
One measure of the power, or again perhaps of the problematic of his thought, is
that there has been very little “pure” Dionysianism in the history of Christianity.
From the start his writings were treated much like the Bible itself—as a divine
message filled with inner life and mysterious meaning which could never be
exhausted, but which needed to be reread in each generation and reinterpreted in
the light of new issues.[58]
One of the main Dionysian contributions is not even so much in his philosophi
cal appeal and mystical attractiveness as in his cosmological vision of the universe
presented in Christian terms. This worldview, significantly modified and developed
by Maximus the Confessor (c. 580–662), still constitutes a representation of the
worldview of Eastern Orthodoxy, and serves as a silent tribute to the genius of Neo
platonic philosophy.
In the summarizing characteristic of de Vogel,
1. East Christians really look up from visible things to the Invisible, which is to
them more fully real. Things are for them “images” of a perfect archetype, and
“signs” of the presence of God.
2. Without being disloyal to this world, they truly keep distance from the visible
things, penetrated by the conviction that the Invisible is much better.
3. Platonism which, though the mass of the people do not know it, is perpetually
present in their view of man and the world, is truly Christianized in their inner life.
4. All this is so, not only in the meditations of monks and the theoretical
reflections of theologians, but it lives in the hearts of simple people of the country,
men and women.[59]
Overall, the influence of the Corpus Dionysiacum is not confined to the Christian
East. It became universal. The mysterious content of enigmatically originated works
in vicissitudes of history secured for PseudoDionysius almost one millennium of
uncontested authority. As Kenneth Wesche remarks,
[57]
Wallis, Neoplatonism, 160–62.
Bernard McGinn, The Foundations of
Mysticism: Origins to the Fifth Century (New
York: Crossroad, 1995), 182. This tendency is
still not abandoned, see for example, Paul
Rorem, PseudoDionysius: A Commentary on the
Texts and an Introduction to Their Influence (Ox
[58]
152
ford University Press, 1993).
[59]
C. J. de Vogel, “Platonism and Christiani
ty: A Mere Antagonism or a Profound Common
Ground?” Vigiliae Christianae 39 (1985): 47.
[60]
Kenneth Paul Wesche, “Christological
Doctrine and Liturgical Interpretation in
PseudoDionysius,” 72.
Áîãîñëîâñêèå ðàçìûøëåíèÿ, ¹16 / 2016
Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and Eastern Orthodoxy
In understanding encountered today, one appreciates even more the importance
of PseudoDionysius, for he articulates ideas that are very congenial, even if not
fully compatible, with Christian philosophy; or he may in fact be directly
responsible for, or at least a major contributor to, many of these understandings
through the influence he has had on Christian Tradition.[60]
There is no surprise that even today we still have defenders of essential orthodoxy
of these documents.
Bibliography
Dionisii Areopagit. Korpus sochinenii s tolko
vaniiami prep. Maksima Ispovednika [Dio
nisius Areopagite. A Corpus of Works with
Maximus the Confessor’s Commentaries].
– SPb.: Izdatel’stvo Olega Abyshko, 2010.
Athanassiadi, Polymnia. “Dreams, Theurgy and
Freelance Divination: The Testimony of
Iamblichus.” The Journal of Roman Studies
83 (1993): 115–30.
Berchman, R. M. From Philo to Origen: Middle
Platonism in Transition. Chico, CA: Schol
ars Press, 1984.
Corrigan, Kevin. Reading Plotinus: A Practical
Introduction to Neoplatonism. West Lafay
ette, IN: Purdue University Press, 2005.
De Vogel, C. J. “Platonism and Christianity: A
Mere Antagonism or a Profound Common
Ground?” Vigiliae Christianae 39 (1985): 162.
Di Berardino, Angelo and Basil Studer, eds.
History of Theology. Vol. 1 The Patristic Pe
riod. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical
Press, 1997.
Golitzin, Alexander. Et Introibo Ad Altare Dei:
The Mystagogy of Dionysius Areopagita: With
Special Reference to Its Predecessors in the
Eastern Christian Tradition. Thessaloniki:
Patriarchikon Idruma Paterikon Meleton,
1994.
Golitzin, Alexander with the collaboration of
Bogdan G. Bucur. Mystagogy: A Monastic
Reading of Dionysius Areopagita. Collegev
ille, MN: Liturgical Press, 2013.
Harl, K. W. “Sacrifice and Pagan Belief in Fifth
and SixthCentury Byzantium.” Past and
Present 128 (1990): 7–27.
Hathaway, Ronald F. Hierarchy and the Definition
of Order in the Letters of PseudoDionysius. A
Study in the Form and Meaning of the Pseudo
Dionysian Writings. Hague: Nijhoff, 1969.
Iamblichus. De Mysteriis, translated by Emma
C. Clarke, John M. Dillon, and Jackson P.
Hershbell. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2003.
Theological Reflections, #16 / 2016
Kharlamov, Vladimir. The Beauty of the Unity
and the Harmony of the Whole: The Concept
of Theosis in the Theology of PseudoDiony
sius the Areopagite. Eugene, OR: Wipf and
Stock, 2009.
Koch, Hugo. “Proklus als Quelle des Pseudo
Dionysius Areopagita in der Lehre vom Bos
en.” Philologus 54 (1895): 438–54.
________. PseudoDionysius Areopagita in
Seinen Beziehungen zum Neuplatonismus und
Mysterienwesen. 1900.
Louth, Andrew. Denys the Areopagite. London:
G. Chapman, 1989.
________. “Pagan Theurgy and Christian Sac
ramentalism in Denys the Areopagite.”
Journal of Theological Studies 37 (1986):
432–38.
McGinn, Bernard. The Foundations of Mysti
cism: Origins to the Fifth Century. New York:
Crossroad, 1995.
Meyendorff, John. Christ in Eastern Christian
Thought. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s
Seminary Press, 1975.
________. “Continuities and Discontinuities
in Byzantine Religious Thought.” Dumbar
ton Oaks Papers 47 (1993), 69–81.
O’Meara, Dominic J., ed. Neoplatonism and
Christian Thought. Albany, NY: State Uni
versity of New York Press, 1982.
PseudoDionysius. Corpus Dionysiacum I: De
Divinis Nominibus. Edited by Beate Regina
Suchla. Patristische Texte und Studien 33.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1990.
________. Corpus Dionysiacum II: De Coelesti
Hierarchia, De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia, De
Mystica Theologia, Epistulae. Edited by
Günter Hail and Adolf Martin Ritter. Pa
tristische Texte und Studien 36. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 1991.
________. The Complete Works. Translated by
Colm Luibheid and Paul Rorem. The Clas
sics of Western Spirituality. New York:
Paulist Press, 1987.
153
Vladimir Kharlamov
Rist, John. “Basil’s ‘Neoplatonism’: Its Back
ground and Nature.” In Basil of Caesarea:
Christian, Humanist, Ascetic, edited by Paul
Jonathan Fedwick, 137–220. Toronto: Pon
tifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1981.
________. “Plotinus and Christian Philoso
phy.” In The Cambridge Companion to Ploti
nus, edited by Lloyd P. Gerson, 386–413.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, 1999.
Rorem, Paul and John Lamoreaux. John of Scy
thopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: Annotat
ing the Areopagite. Oxford: Oxford Univer
sity Press, 1998.
Rosan, Laurence Jay. The Philosophy of Proclus:
The Final Phase of Ancient Thought. New
York: Cosmos GreekAmerican Printing
Co., 1949.
Shaw, Gregory. “Neoplatonic Theurgy and Di
onysius the Areopagite.” Journal of Early
Christian Studies 7 (1999): 573–99.
154
Stiglmayr, Josef. “Der Neuplatoniker Proclus
als Vorlage des sog. Dionysius Areopagita in
der Lehre vom Ubel.” Historisches Jahrbuch
16 (1895): 253–73, 721–48.
Suchla, Beate Regina. “Die Überlieferung des
Prologs des Johannes von Skythopolis zum
griechischen Corpus Dionysiacum Ar
eopagiticum: ein weiterer Beitrag zur Über
lieferungsgeschichte des CD.” Nachrichten
der Akademie Der Wissenschaften in Göttin
gen: PhilologischHistorische Klasse (1984),
4:176–88.
Wallis, R. T. Neoplatonism, 2nd ed. Indianapo
lis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 1995.
Wesche, Kenneth Paul. “Christological Doc
trine and Liturgical Interpretation in Pseu
doDionysius.” St. Vladimir’s Theological
Quarterly 33 (1989): 53–73.
Áîãîñëîâñêèå ðàçìûøëåíèÿ, ¹16 / 2016